The Pant Project Wants 150 Stores. Will the Numbers Fit?

Reaching 150 stores from a base of 25 requires 125 net additions. Spread across two to three years, that means roughly one new outlet every six to nine days.

For The Pant Project, this is the operating challenge behind its ₹109 crore Series B. The round, led by Mirae Asset Venture Investments (India), will support a plan to exceed 150 stores, broaden its assortment and strengthen sales across physical and digital channels. The company has also secured an undisclosed amount of venture debt from Alteria Capital.

Expansion on that scale changes what must be managed. A brand built around finding better-fitting trousers must repeatedly choose locations, recruit staff, allocate stock and recover its investment in each shop.

The case for trying is credible. In a September company announcement, The Pant Project reported ₹80 crore revenue for FY26 and projected ₹160 crore for FY27. Those are company-disclosed figures and a forecast, respectively.

The harder question is how much cash the next stage of growth can generate after paying for the infrastructure required to deliver it.

THE FITTING ROOM HAS TO EARN ITS KEEP

Founded in 2020 by brothers Dhruv and Udit Toshniwal, The Pant Project sells custom-made and ready-to-wear bottomwear. Its physical stores address a practical limitation of selling clothes through a screen: customers can assess fabric, movement and fit before committing.

There is an economic argument behind that experience. In a March interview, Dhruv put average offline order value at about ₹6,000, compared with ₹3,000–4,000 online.

That makes the reported offline bill roughly 1.5–2 times its online counterpart. It does not establish that opening a store causes an existing customer to spend that much more. The customer mix, number of items purchased and discounts could differ.

The meaningful comparison is the money retained from each channel after its costs. Online orders carry marketing, delivery and return expenses. Stores require occupancy costs, staff and local operations. A larger bill can help cover those obligations, but cannot establish superior profitability by itself.

Physical retail could also make subsequent online purchases easier. Once a customer knows a reliable fit, buying another pair may require less deliberation. The store’s contribution could therefore extend beyond transactions recorded at its till.

That benefit needs to be measured across the customer’s purchases, while avoiding counting sales merely transferred from the website as entirely new demand.

WHAT 125 MORE STORES COST

Dhruv’s March account described typical outlets as 700–800 sq ft, with ₹30–40 lakh invested per store. Applying that earlier range to 125 additions produces an illustrative investment requirement of ₹37.5–50 crore.

This is a calculation using historical management guidance, not an announced expansion budget. Formats, locations, ownership arrangements and investment requirements may change. The disclosed range also does not provide a complete breakdown of what is included.

Beyond opening expenditure, the network needs stock and enough cash to support stores while demand develops. A location can eventually become attractive while consuming money during its early months.

Speed creates another complication. Opening many outlets before earlier batches mature leaves less time to learn which locations, assortments and staffing models work best. A weak decision can be repeated before its consequences become clear.

The quality of expansion therefore depends on how quickly each batch recovers its investment and whether established stores continue growing. Total revenue can increase through new openings even when older outlets lose momentum.

FIT IS A COMPETITIVE CLAIM

The global comparison is useful because fitting assistance already has established retail formats.

American menswear brand Bonobos describes its Guideshops as places where customers receive personal advice, try different fits and styles, and have orders shipped home. The arrangement shows how a physical location can help customers choose while fulfilment happens elsewhere. It does not establish that The Pant Project operates the same model or has comparable economics.

Uniqlo’s Indian website also offers online alteration for selected trousers and jeans.

These examples raise the standard for differentiation. Assistance with fit is valuable, but customers can obtain elements of it from other retailers and tailors.

The Pant Project must make its own combination of fabric, sizing, service and price worth returning for. A fit that remains dependable across repeat purchases could be more persuasive than a claim made at the first sale.

In his FY27 priorities, Dhruv identified customer fit data as an asset and proposed using AI-led sizing to reduce returns and exchanges. The commercial evidence would be a sustained improvement in those outcomes, alongside the cost of achieving it.

MORE CHOICE, MORE STOCK

The proposed assortment expansion needs careful interpretation. Jeans and athleisure are already part of the business: the September announcement listed more than 300 stock-keeping units across trousers, chinos, jeans, cargos, shorts and other bottomwear.

The next stage, therefore, includes deepening existing categories. A wider offering may give customers more reasons to purchase and help a store serve different occasions.

It also adds inventory decisions. Each combination of style, colour, fit and size requires a judgment about demand. Across a larger network, a popular product can be unavailable in one location while unwanted stock remains elsewhere.

The financial risk is that additional choice increases the cash committed to merchandise faster than it increases sales. Discounts can clear excess stock, but reduce the margin available to cover the store’s costs.

Good replenishment and transfers between locations could limit that problem. The relevant evidence is how quickly inventory sells, how much requires discounting and how often customers encounter unavailable sizes.

THE PROFITABILITY DISTINCTION

Management’s earlier disclosures contain an important distinction. In March, Dhruv said all existing stores were profitable, while expecting to be near company-wide EBITDA breakeven at approximately ₹150–160 crore revenue.

Store profitability and company profitability measure different things. The former may exclude central functions, technology, warehousing and other shared expenses, depending on the definition. EBITDA breakeven also leaves depreciation, financing costs and tax to be considered.

Neither statement should be treated as proof that the expanded business will generate cash consistently. The outcome depends on how established outlets perform while new ones add costs.

The ₹109 crore provides room to build that network. It cannot establish whether each location deserves the capital allocated to it.

The Pant Project’s strongest opportunity is to make a familiar purchase reliably easier, then earn repeat business from customers who trust the result. At 150 stores, success will be visible in cash recovered from those purchases after paying for stock, space and service.

The next opening will be easy to count. The return on it will take longer to establish.